Rick Perry vs. Barack Obama
The campaign has begun

Really true and really relevant. Socialized losses refers to banks making risky bets with government insured deposits. If non banks want to make risky bets with their own money, that's fine. That's called capitalism.

I am honestly struggling to think of any time the government has ever paid out under FDIC. I can think of banks that went bankrupt and wiped out their equity. Even some cases where they went bankrupt enough to wipe out their bond holders, but never so bankrupt that they could not pay out to their clients upon liquidation.

If you mean the costs of part nationalization at a number of banks, eg, Northern Rock, or RBS, then its very unclear whether the UK government will actually lose any money. So far all the government loans have been repaid, and following the sale of the banking part of it to vigin media, the tay payer is a few hundred million out of pocket, but expects to recoup some of that (maybe even make a profit) from the asset company holding most of the mortgage books.

RBS and Northerrock have both paid back the loads the treasure gave them on schedule, and by far the biggest factor in determining whether they were overall a loss is what price they get from RBS equity when they sell it. If they hold on to it for long enough they look sure to profit from it.

Do you have an actual example of a socialised loss? Also, you do realise that the FDIC is funded by premiums paid by the banks themselves, it is not tax payer funded as such. I mean we have just seen the worst financial crisis for a century at least, and the FDIC had enough assets stored up from its premiums to cover the costs of receivership (i.e. paying off the bank's clients) of nearly 100 banks, at zero cost to the taxpayer.

They have work rules that make free movement of labor too expensive still
They have property rules that make buying things like land almost impossible, one reason is lack of clear title.

If you still make it too hard to invest in Labor or hard assets you dont solve the real issues.

Also you dont want pull your profits out if you get paid in worthless greek dollars.

To use your Toyota example, if I cant buy land, or have expensive work rules that make building cars there just not worth the hassle, forget it I will build somewhere else. If I cant pull my money out in Euros or Yen, that again makes it less attractive.

In fact in the places you discuss, they made it easy to move capital, labor and assets. These are the real problems that the Greeks are still unwilling to fix. Starting a company takes 5 minutes in Hong Kong. In Greece it takes endless paperwork and bribes.

Bottom line destroying your currency may help for a few nights but does not solve any of the real issues here per my previous posts.

I don't disagree with you that these are reasons why greece should be poorer. They are not reasons why greece's economy should be noncompetitive. If you live in a free floating exchange rate, all of these costs would be factored in to the exchange rate, but by definition, it would sink to the level where investment in greece is desirable, despite these problems. That is the magic of exchange rates.

Not sure I would consider what France did to Germany as ass kicking, but as France was on the winning side of both the latest wars, I am not sure what else you could mean.

It's a bit cleverer than that - it's that due to Germany's geographic situation, historically it (or its composite states) have partnered up with France OR Russia to the determent of the other (When it's tried 'none of the above' it tends to come unstuck). France and co would like to lock it in to one team.

Not sure I would consider what France did to Germany as ass kicking, but as France was on the winning side of both the latest wars, I am not sure what else you could mean.

Indeed, the cheese eating surrender monkeys managed to claim victory despite surrendering Paris without doing any actual fighting first. This is in keeping with such famous french 'victories' as the American Revolution, First promise support, then get some mainly English colonists to fight other mainly english colonists, and sail around for a bit cheering and proclaiming victory, without actually delivering any aid.

Similar story to the Jacobite rebellion. French promised support to the Scots, but `accidentally' sailed into Ireland rather than England and missed all the actual fighting.

Indeed, the cheese eating surrender monkeys managed to claim victory despite surrendering Paris without doing any actual fighting first. This is in keeping with such famous french 'victories' as the American Revolution, First promise support, then get some mainly English colonists to fight other mainly english colonists, and sail around for a bit cheering and proclaiming victory, without actually delivering any aid.

Similar story to the Jacobite rebellion. French promised support to the Scots, but `accidentally' sailed into Ireland rather than England and missed all the actual fighting.

Beats the standard American Model

A) Invade
B) Declare victory
C) Withdraw in haste after a loss of popular support.

See: Vietnam, Iraq, Haiti, Somalia (apparently the US won that too?). French model is the same except they skip all the bits where they might get shot first.

--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

While the fact that Obama has been conservative economically is not surprising to (most) posters here, I, for one, didn't realize how his well numbers actually compared.

The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell

While the fact that Obama has been conservative economically is not surprising to (most) posters here, I, for one, didn't realize how his well numbers actually compared.

To be fair, there was a massive uptick in spending in 2008-2009 because of the economic situation. Some of this was the result of temporary programs like TARP and the stimulus, and most of the rest was automatic increases to programs like food stamps, medicaid, and unemployment insurance. The 2008-2009 increase in spending wasn't Obama's fault -- but the impression was that this increase in spending was temporary and not the "new normal" amount of government spending. In Obama's budget years (2010 through 2013 projection) this high level of spending has stayed fairly constant. But most of us hoped it would go down as the economy recovered, and it really hasn't. The various articles are trying to give Obama credit for continuing to spend at the massive rate that Bush spent in 2008-2009, rather than raising it further to even more ridiculous levels.

Of course, it's also true that revenues are at a 50-year low, and that most of the spending is due to the bad economy and not new government programs Obama introduced. And Obama has proposed really significant combinations of spending cuts and revenue increases and the Republicans won't even meet him halfway.

To be fair, there was a massive uptick in spending in 2008-2009 because of the economic situation. Some of this was the result of temporary programs like TARP and the stimulus, and most of the rest was automatic increases to programs like food stamps, medicaid, and unemployment insurance. The 2008-2009 increase in spending wasn't Obama's fault -- but the impression was that this increase in spending was temporary and not the "new normal" amount of government spending. In Obama's budget years (2010 through 2013 projection) this high level of spending has stayed fairly constant. But most of us hoped it would go down as the economy recovered, and it really hasn't. The various articles are trying to give Obama credit for continuing to spend at the massive rate that Bush spent in 2008-2009, rather than raising it further to even more ridiculous levels.

Of course, it's also true that revenues are at a 50-year low, and that most of the spending is due to the bad economy and not new government programs Obama introduced. And Obama has proposed really significant combinations of spending cuts and revenue increases and the Republicans won't even meet him halfway.

It takes a year for a first-term president to establish a budget, so the first year of a new president is actually using the budget of the previous president, so 2008-09 was the Bush budget.

This post sponsored by: All County Building Supply & Maintenance, Felo, NY.Without truth it is impossible to speak truth to power, so there is only power.

I have been wondering a little. We are hearing about a re-run of last year's game of chicken with the debt ceiling. Now that some of the dust has settled, what can we say?

Are we still downgraded by S&P?
Does anyone care? Otherwise put, did it matter?
Did any of the automatic budget cuts that would supposedly enforce discipline actually happen?
Did the special select committee accomplish anything?
Has anything changed?

I realize I don't know the answer to any of these. My guess is that except for a bunch of idiots getting a lot of air time, not much happened.

1338054272[/url]' post='641486']
I have been wondering a little. We are hearing about a re-run of last year's game of chicken with the debt ceiling. Now that some of the dust has settled, what can we say?

Are we still downgraded by S&P?
Does anyone care? Otherwise put, did it matter?
Did any of the automatic budget cuts that would supposedly enforce discipline actually happen?
Did the special select committee accomplish anything?
Has anything changed?

I realize I don't know the answer to any of these. My guess is that except for a bunch of idiots getting a lot of air time, not much happened.

1) yes
2)The rating agencies normally follow the bond markets. It's a little bizarre that a sovereign was downgraded, since it can always monetize it's debt. It's virtually impossible for a country to default on debt issued in its own currency. It matters in so far as the the ratings agencies hold a specialised role. When a financial company rates the risk of their holdings they are required to use the official ratings agency. At least in the uk. But that will not mattered for a security as well studied as the us bonds, but it would matter for less well studied bonds.
3) don't know4) no5) no

I have been wondering a little. We are hearing about a re-run of last year's game of chicken with the debt ceiling. Now that some of the dust has settled, what can we say?

Are we still downgraded by S&P?
Does anyone care? Otherwise put, did it matter?
Did any of the automatic budget cuts that would supposedly enforce discipline actually happen?
Did the special select committee accomplish anything?
Has anything changed?

I realize I don't know the answer to any of these. My guess is that except for a bunch of idiots getting a lot of air time, not much happened.

The select committee couldn't agree on a plan, so the automatic cuts that were supposed to force the committee to act are scheduled to kick in at the end of the year. But congress evidently intends to undo those provisions before they do kick in -- maybe after the election. However, Obama could veto the undoing (keeping the automatic cuts in force would hurt the economy for a few months, but not for long, according to the CBO), so he's in a stronger position than last year.

The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell

However, Obama could veto the undoing (keeping the automatic cuts in force would hurt the economy for a few months, but not for long, according to the CBO)...

that'll never happen, even if he wins re-election... i expect to see obama win, but both houses to have republican majorities... that would, imho, give obama more cover, regardless of congress' actions on the auto cuts

Huh! Just goes to show what I know. I had thought these cuts were going to kick in already.

So a follow-up question: Has either candidate (yeah, I know, presumptive candidates) even mentioned their views on whether these cuts should take place as scheduled? With no modifications? Seems like it might be a good question to ask them. And we could ask others.

For example, rather than have a re-run of last year's hit show, maybe Boehner could simply say "We put automatic cuts in place, they are coming, they will happen". After the cuts, he can have his re-run if he still feels the need.

My thoughts from the beginning have been that if all this talk about cuts actually led to substantial cuts, there would be great wailing. People want the other guy's benefits cut. When they find out it's their benefit that gets scaled back or eliminated, watch out.

New York’s rich and super-rich convened in the Hamptons on Sunday for a trio of fundraisers for Mitt Romney, expected to bring in as much as $4 million. And the well-heeled donors did little to avoid looking like, well, moneyed attendees paying for exclusive access to the Republican candidate.

While a group of Occupy Wall Street protesters assembled in the area, the Porsches, Range Rovers and BMWs streamed in.

Quote

A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. “I don’t think the common person is getting it,” she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. “Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.
“We’ve got the message,” she added. “But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies — everybody who’s got the right to vote — they don’t understand what’s going on. I just think if you’re lower income — one, you’re not as educated, two, they don’t understand how it works, they don’t understand how the systems work, they don’t understand the impact.”

Quote

Romney, for his part, said at the fundraiser that he is focused on everyday voters. “If you are here, by and large, you are doing just fine,” Romney said, according to the Times. “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about those here. I spend a lot of time worrying about those that are poor and those in the middle class that are finding it hard to make a bright future for themselves.”

A Romney campaign spokesman said that a Romney administration plan to eliminate the national debt involved selling off the non-profitable parts of the government, while pocketing the proceeds of the Social Security trust fund as unnecessary benefits.

When asked how this action would affect the middle and lower class, the spokesman said, "Who cares?"

This post sponsored by: All County Building Supply & Maintenance, Felo, NY.Without truth it is impossible to speak truth to power, so there is only power.